2006-12-16 01:47:52 · 12 answers · asked by swixon 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
NO!!!!! But I do believe that the system should be modify in a way that when a presidential candidate wins a congressional district, they only win one Electoral College vote. If a candidate wins the majority of the congressional districts, they should then get the two Sentorial Electoral College votes as a bonus. However, if the two candidates win equal numbers of congressional districts, then they split the two Sentorial Electoral College Votes.
2006-12-16 18:37:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do. I think the popular vote reflects the actual descision of the American people. A president may win a state such as Delaware, and lose a state such as California. The pperson who won California will have more electoral college votes. Remember the 2000 presidential election? Gore had way more of the popular vote than Gore. It came down to Florida with the electoral college. And, of course the rest is history. Too bad Gore's brother wasn't the governor of Florida. The same thing happened in 2004, Kerry had a slight lead in the popular vote, but this time, Bush did win Ohio, after agonizing recounts.
I hope to see some major adjustments to the way the electoral college works. Make it like the senate. Each state only gets two votes. That would make it more realistic and equally representative. Better, yet, stick to the popular vote like the rest of the elections, local, state, and national.
2006-12-16 03:37:21 · answer #2 · answered by jameskidd2009 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
conventional vote, in a run-off election like France does if no candidate wins a majority of the conventional vote after the first election. In a favored vote election, your vote may extremely count and be equivalent in all fifty one electoral areas. i'm particular the human beings of u . s . at the instantaneous are smart sufficient to immediately opt for his or her president after 2 hundred plus years. Territories should be allowed to vote for the President besides, they have that precise in France besides, which has a Semi-Presidental gadget. the conception of a favored vote develop into heavily entertained after an election Nixon received in 1968. He had .a million% more beneficial conventional vote yet had 301 EVs over 191(Humphrey) and 40 six (Wallace, a southern protest vote by technique of the electors). Electoral college protects the rights of the small states and it is the position the change considered its fall. It handed Congress in spite of the undeniable fact that it died contained in the smaller states. So both all the States comply with some style of electoral college reform or flow for conventional vote or human beings opt for this count in a Referendum.
2016-11-26 22:32:23 · answer #3 · answered by wiltshire 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the presidency was decided by the popular vote than politicians would only have to campaign on the east and west coast in order to get votes, and that would leave all of the less populated states without any say in the matter. so no.
2006-12-16 03:43:22 · answer #4 · answered by blank 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, we should end the Electoral College, it is out dated. In 2000 Gore got 50,996,116 votes Bush only got 50,456,169. Bush Lost.
John Kerry won Ohio in 2004 and Bush lost that election as well.
In 2004 Bush was awarded Ohio by a Conservative Bias Supreme Court, that court ruled against States rights.
Those are the facts.
2006-12-16 02:17:09 · answer #5 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absofrigginloutly..........The electorial college ....just what is that ? It's a bunch of political puppets that the party with the most "FAVORS" pulls the strings. If the popular vote matters not...then we no longer have a government..." by the people and for the people" ..And if BUSH was an honest man he would not be in office...And that's the truth..........
2006-12-16 01:54:04 · answer #6 · answered by mrfatbobs 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes Then we would be a true democracy as opposed to a representative democracy. And every vote would matter not a number of votes for any given state like it is now.
This would cause issues but it would give true power to the people.
2006-12-16 01:52:45 · answer #7 · answered by valkesa_83 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our forefathers had no electoral college so neither should we unless we want a country bought and sold for money alone - wait, we have that now, don't we!!!
2006-12-16 08:53:27 · answer #8 · answered by Al B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do we really have to dumb it down now, so Democrats can actually get a candidate in the White House. Sorry libs, affirmative action doesn't apply in national elections.
2006-12-16 05:15:48 · answer #9 · answered by Jarhead 91 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think they should be elected by the assocatied press and a coaches poll...they can't screw up government any more than they do college football (Go Michigan)
2006-12-16 01:55:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋